>>9973333No, because the pictures once analyzed would obviously be fake, as would the data. You're seriously, very dumb.
Maybe try making a better analogy?
>>9973335Sure, because that still means I have more evidence than you. Data. Whilst you don't even have pictures anyway, which was your only "evidence". So now, you claim literally has less evidence than mine, from your own assertions.
Good job, idiot, good job.
